Three Powerful Books

[Guest]

As I said the physics guy, you can’t shrink wrap the whole polygamy thing into a short sentence or two. Well, you can, but you don’t begin to scratch the surface. And as I’ve said before, you need to keep the filter of history in mind also. A lot of what we know, or think we know, about polygamy came through the lens of Nauvoo polygamy which in large part comes through the historical shenanigans of John C Bennett.

So the concern was that Smith “used his position of power to rape and sexually assault many women and girls,” which mg condenses into “the whole polygamy thing,” as seen through “the filter of history.”

How is that a middle ground? The question of rape and sexual assault is renamed without addressing it, and then even the renaming gets a pass because it happened a long time ago? No, that doesn’t address the concerns at all, it simply sidesteps them entirely. No effort is made to even address the concern at all. That’s just avoidance, not the admitting, researching, and then reconciling (or not) of concerns.

I think you make a very important point about how focus off the people involved allows MG to reframe it into something lost to history so whose to say what really happened?

I read MG as strongly suggesting polygamy was murky and likely associated with John Bennett. He put distance between Smith and polygamy to allow for doubt.

What it doesn't do it acknowledge polygamy started with Fanny Alger which was documented in the excommunication trial for Oliver Cowdery well before Bennett was associating with Smith.

But more important, it makes me question if he spent real time reading the accounts of the women involved? Did he read In Sacred Loneliness? Did he spend time with Emma's feelings and the effects on Smith's family?

It seems to me MG is following the Hales in hand-waving it away. That's not dealing with the issues. That's finding a way to dismiss the issue to make room for faith. He's grossly misrepresenting what he is doing.

[_mentalgymnast]

The question of rape and sexual assault is renamed [by MG] without addressing it, and then even the renaming gets a pass because it happened a long time ago? No, that doesn’t address the concerns at all, it simply sidesteps them entirely. No effort is made to even address the concern at all. That’s just avoidance, not the admitting, researching, and then reconciling (or not) of concerns.

Non sequitur.

Rape and assault? Prove it. Be careful with your sourcing.

How can something be side stepped if it’s not there?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I could go through each item on your list and explain how I’ve been able to dovetail these concerns with a ‘scaffolding’ which includes ‘God’ and restoration of lost truths....

I had to do the hard work on my own. It’s a personal path one must take.

Anyway, thanks for the questions. First time I’d ever given any of them more than a passing thought.

:rolleyes:

Joking. Are you that dense?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I think you make a very important point about how focus off the people involved allows MG to reframe it into something lost to history so whose to say what really happened?

I’m not in any way saying Joseph wasn’t involved.

I read MG as strongly suggesting polygamy was murky and likely associated with John Bennett. He put distance between Smith and polygamy to allow for doubt.

It is murky. John C. Bennett was a major player. He wrote a book which became a sensation and an ongoing resource for antagonists of Joseph Smith.

What it doesn't do it acknowledge polygamy started with Fanny Alger which was documented in the excommunication trial for Oliver Cowdery well before Bennett was associating with Smith.

Duh.

But more important, it makes me question if he spent real time reading the accounts of the women involved? Did he read In Sacred Loneliness? Did he spend time with Emma's feelings and the effects on Smith's family?

Yes, I read it quite a few years ago. And yes, I know the impact polygamy had on Emma. William Clayton’s diary makes that rather clear. Joseph went to great lengths to try and pacify her.

It seems to me MG is following the Hales in hand-waving it away. That's not dealing with the issues. That's finding a way to dismiss the issue to make room for faith. He's grossly misrepresenting what he is doing.

I know what the issues are. I haven’t seen evidence showing, as a matter of fact, what Lemmie is accusing Joseph of.

I don’t want to get into a long thing on polygamy right now. Been there, done that. The argument that Doc seems to be making is that there is no middle ground on what may appear to be troubling issues.

I take issue with that. Folks like him...and you, I would assume...don’t want to go there.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

He is stuck in Mormonism. The same for many well educated people. Many Like MG are part of devout families where unbelief is a HUGE deal. Then add getting married to a women who thinks the same thing. Unbelief is a huge deal that has good odds of one losing their family, wife and children.

I would only add that among well educated people who are part of devout families, the same thing happens when you add in getting married to a man “who thinks the same thing.”

I also agree with your final sentence, and would only add that “Unbelief is a huge deal that has good odds of one losing their family,” husband, “and children.“

LOl yes of course. I guess my problem is I was writing about MG and general people at the same time.

[_Themis]

I don’t want to get into a long thing on polygamy right now. Been there, done that. The argument that Doc seems to be making is that there is no middle ground on what may appear to be troubling issues.

Don't know how one can get any middle ground with Joseph's sexual escapades. Religious leaders using their positions of power to access sex with their followers is really really common. Also common is those religious leaders claiming God commanded them to do it. There is no middle ground. One either believes God commanded them or not. One can look at whether they think God would do such a thing. For me polygamy was not the main issue. Things like the Book of Abraham proved Joseph was a fraud. Polygamy was just some more good evidence Joseph's behaviors fit those of your common religious founder, making it easier to see Joseph was making his religion up as he went.

First you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti5AkLup1mI

[_Lemmie]

:rolleyes:

Joking. Are you that dense?

What’s funny is how often you, IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, exactly contradict yourself. I assumed you were poking fun at your own propensity to regularly do that, but maybe you didn’t get your own joke.

[_Lemmie]

The question of rape and sexual assault is renamed [by MG] without addressing it, and then even the renaming gets a pass because it happened a long time ago? No, that doesn’t address the concerns at all, it simply sidesteps them entirely. No effort is made to even address the concern at all. That’s just avoidance, not the admitting, researching, and then reconciling (or not) of concerns.

Rape and assault? Prove it. Be careful with your sourcing.

Don’t have to. Themis already made the point extremely well about what you sidestepped:

Don't know how one can get any middle ground with Joseph's sexual escapades. Religious leaders using their positions of power to access sex with their followers is really really common. Also common is those religious leaders claiming God commanded them to do it. There is no middle ground. One either believes God commanded them or not. One can look at whether they think God would do such a thing.

[_mentalgymnast]

...maybe you didn’t get your own joke.

I knew exactly what I was doing. In all seriousness, you are too serious. Lighten up.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Rape and assault? Prove it. Be careful with your sourcing.

Don’t have to. Themis already made the point extremely well about what you sidestepped:

Don't know how one can get any middle ground with Joseph's sexual escapades. Religious leaders using their positions of power to access sex with their followers is really really common. Also common is those religious leaders claiming God commanded them to do it. There is no middle ground. One either believes God commanded them or not. One can look at whether they think God would do such a thing.

No he didn’t. He started right off with loaded language and making an analogy that may be incorrect. That’s loading the dice.

Like I said earlier, prove that Joseph Smith raped and assaulted women. The onus is on you.

Regards, MG